Appeal No. 2001-2348
Application 08/927,222
requests received within a predetermined interval and
transitioning between modes based on this number of requests.
Nitta transitions between the shared lock mode and the exclusive
lock mode when a counter indicates that there are no pending
requests to use the shared lock. The specific number of requests
for access to the shared lock which is indicated by the counter
is irrelevant in Nitta. There is no predetermined interval in
Nitta, and the examiner’s finding that this interval equals the
total access time of the handler is incorrect because this total
access time is not predetermined. Additionally, the
transitioning in Nitta is not based on the number of requests
received, but rather, it is based on the fact that all the
requests have been handled regardless of the number. In other
words, the handling of all requests in Nitta rather than the
actual number of requests controls the transitioning. The
interval it takes to handle all requests is not predetermined in
Nitta.
With respect to the rejection of claims 7, 12 and 14
based on Nitta and Becker, we will not sustain the rejection of
these claims either. The examiner’s findings with respect to
Nitta are deficient for reasons discussed above. Since the
additional teachings of Becker do not overcome the deficiencies
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007